Whodunnit?

There are rules for just about everything.

Our Society is based on fundamental laws;  we drive our vehicles to a Highway Code, we live our own lives to a moral code and assemble flat pack furniture in accordance with a schematic.

We may, once in a while, feel like a bit of a rebellion against such codes of conduct and feel momentarily better for flaunting a minor legality, speeding or eating whilst on four or two wheels, setting fire to something or just winging it on returning from IKEA with a large cardboard box of bits and pieces.

We learn things in a systematic way and even now, some 40 years after having had to memorise and then recite a poem by A A Milne at a Music Festival I can still spill out the words on an occasion where "could we have some butter for the Royal slice of bread" comes in useful in an everyday conversation or situation.

From my interest in Science Fiction there is the adherence to the Laws of Robotics as devised by Isaac Asimov to govern how such entities behave towards humans. The laws are inter-related but, let's face it, if robots do ever reach a state of superiority over their creators and have the intelligence to work out their own moral compass and constraints then we are probably doomed anyway. I can see a Fourth Law coming into play in such a scenario which dismisses the preceeding three allowing robots and mechanicals to run amok and take our livelihoods and children. The laws have however brought about some general consistency and stability in writings of a science fiction genre.

I was therefore pleased to see a similar set of rules applicable to Detective Fiction.

These were drawn up in the late 1920's by Monsignor Ronald A, Knox , himself a detective story writer, but more than that also in being a bit of a humourist, literary critic, editor and a clergyman.

The inter war period was widely seen to have been a Golden Age for the genre and the Monsignor felt it appropriate but not without wit and mischief to produce ten rules for budding authors. These include bare-faced common sense and issues fundamental to a convincing and authentic plot line as well as somewhat outrageous and contentious subjects and in one example, a xenophobic attitude bordering on stereotypical racism. In no particular order these are;

The criminal must be someone mentioned in the early part of the story, but must not be anyone whose thoughts the reader has been allowed to follow.

There must be no reliance on supernatural or preternatural agencies.

Not more than one secret room or passage is allowable.

The use of hitherto undiscovered poisons is banned as is the use of any appliance requiring a long and laborious scientific explanation at the end.

No Chinaman must figure in the story

The Detective must not be helped by an accident or have some sudden, inexplicable intuition which proves, ultimately to be correct.

The Detective must not commit a crime him or herself.

Clues, not instantly produced for the reader, must not be followed

If the Detective has a bit of a bumbling, stupid but well meaning assistant then he must speak aloud any thoughts and must be seen to be slightly less intelligent than the average reader.

The use in a storyline of identical twins or convincing doubles cannot be sprung on a reader unless adequate groundwork has been made to introduce them.

In producing these rules the Monsignor shows a great knowledge and understanding of detective Fiction of his era in the 1920's . However, these are now very much dated and in the modern world of writing I can already think of many, many examples and some subsequently dodgy movie adaptations where these have been completely ignored and disregarded. The genre is much the poorer for the anarchy which has arisen in the relentless pursuit of notoriety, fame, wealth, industry recognition and awards.